Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/ICC Women's Cricketer of the Year/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:08, 25 July 2012 [1].

ICC Women's Cricketer of the Year[edit]

ICC Women's Cricketer of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria. It is loosely based off some similar awards FLs. Harrias talk 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • " typically August to August" you need to run that by me again! Do you mean "the calendar year from August to July"?
  • If only it were that simple. It runs from a specific date in August to a specific date the following August, but oddly, the specific dates seem to vary each year: "August 11, 2010 - August 3, 2011" for Stafanie Taylor, but "24 August 2009 to 10 August 2010" for Shelley Nitschke. I assume it is done so that it doesn't stop midway through a series or tournament possibly? Hence why I've had to say August to August! If you can think of a better way of phrasing it I would be grateful! Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have rephrased this slightly based upon your suggestion, how is it now? Harrias talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhmm. Apparently not. I wrote something really smart sounding too, and can't remember it now. I've put your suggestion in ad verbatim. If I remember what I put before, I might change it to that again (and it may notice this time.) Strange. Harrias talk 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how you'd do it, but it may be worth considering adding a set of statistics for each one for the year that they won the award, because I don't know, for example, how many matches the women play?
  • I think it would be very difficult to do that and maintain an appropriate width to the table while keeping it sortable. I think this information is presented reasonably in the rationale section, and the focus in that section is on the average, which shouldn't give too much advantage to those playing more or less matches. An entirely seperate statistics table could be created, but I think it would then make it a completely different article; I think the focus should be more on the winners than the anaylsis of their performances itself. Harrias talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, and no need to present undue weight to analysis. I guess I'm ignorant to women's cricket mostly, and since I'm pretty keen on men's cricket, this feels a little odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could add alt text to image.
  • Link ICC in the lead somewhere!
  • You have "Since 2009" before "Prior to 2009"... I would reverse this so it's in chronological order.
  • "has been given out," ->"has been presented"?
  • "without having won the award" -> "without winning the award"
  • Ref -> Refs.
  • A caption for the table wouldn't go amiss (for our WP:ACCESS friends).
  • Rolton has "runs" linked, no-one else seems to. Table is sortable so link each time or not at all. Check for this in the table for wickets as well. And check other terms!
  • You use ODI without explaining it.
  • Done. Added a note at the start of the section. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17 is a note, not a ref.
  • Renamed the section rather than having it on its own for visual purposes, though I can switch it over easily enough if you think it appropriate. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stef Taylor, although I've never seen any mandatory requirements for it, I'd prefer to see the refs in numerical order.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – In the first sentence of the 2010 winner's summary, I believe "average" is supposed to be "averaged". That's all from me. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Should 'short-listed' require a hyphen? In this case it should be one worded (shortlisted)
  • Our article is at short list, so I would say no? Removed hyphens wherever I'd accidentally put them in. Harrias talk 14:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ZiaKhan 05:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Just minor ones.

  • You may separate Note from the References.
    • In this case the only note is a very reference related one, so I don't see any advantage in splitting it out. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a template at the end of the list.
  • Use work parameters in the References.
    • I disagree, in this case all of the "works" are more or less the publishers of the site: ESPNcricinfo is published by ESPN and BBC Sport is published by the BBC, but both of those are very self-explanatory, and do not, I feel need a seperate clarification. The ICC self-publishes as does the ECB. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may link "ESPNcricinfo", International Cricket Council" and "BBC Sports".
  • Add an accessdate in Ref# 19.

ZiaKhan 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Nice work. Meets the criteria. ZiaKhan 05:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/ICC_Women%27s_Cricketer_of_the_Year/archive1&oldid=1138480457"